How didn't Crysis 2 get a 9?

Yet ODST, Reach get 9.0/9.5??? Thats nostaligia if i've ever seen it.

To me this makes so little sense, Not only does Crysis 2 have a better story than reach,it looks better, plays better and just has more going for it thanks to the suit abilities. From being able to grab/slide/kick and just completely get immersed in such detail crytek has managed to create for a console game.

I haven't felt this type of epic experience since MGS4, IMO

Thoughts?

Because it doesn't have either "Halo", "CoD" or "Gears" in its name.

Yeah, I agree. Definitely feels like Gamespot underrated it, especially given the inferior games which have received higher scores. It's a AAA game to me.

I think that you have a mighty fine opinion right there & that mine differs greatly. I think ODST > Reach > Crysis 2.

Well because Halo was in the name of course. Halo Wars being the exception. I haven't played crysis 2 so until then I'll see. But halo:ODST was clearly overrated here.

ODST was short, had recycled the MP and only added 1 new feature that was horribly underdeveloped, not to mention it cost 60 dollars as an expansion. Not sure how that turned out to be a 9.0 game.. but then again COD does the same thing and gets that..

Opinions. For every game that gets scored you will find people that think its either overrated, underrated, or just right.

Beyond that I cant think of a single place that reviews games that truly has any sort of consistency, or set standard.

I turned OSDT off after 10 minutes of playing it. :P The level design is appalling. I'm on the "Dead Man Walking" mission on Crysis 2, and it's been incredible so far. :) Definitely a 8.5 - 9 imo. It still lacks that epic feeling to the levels you had while playing Crysis 1 though. :(

Because they don't think it is as good as you do.

I think the 8.5 is justified. The AI was bad and I found the story disappointing. Still an aewsome game though.

I think that you have a mighty fine opinion right there & that mine differs greatly. I think ODST > Reach > Crysis 2.

Twin-Blade

I think that you have a mighty fine opinion right there & that mine differs greatly. I think ODST > Reach > Crysis 2.

Twin-Blade

I think the 8.5 is justified. The AI was bad and I found the story disappointing. Still an aewsome game though.

UnrealLegend

Kevin wants to troll with us, that's why he didn't gidn't give it a 9.

Because it doesn't have either "Halo", "CoD" or "Gears" in its name.

GreenGoblin2099

I think the 8.5 is justified. The AI was bad and I found the story disappointing. Still an aewsome game though.

UnrealLegend

the aliens were a bit stupid, but not as braindead as the black ops AI. the only problem is that sometimes, they will glitch and start running into cover or a wall. as for the story, i found it to be pretty entertaining. and since i actually like the MP, i would rate it a 9. more deserving of a AAA then a few shooters this gen.

[QUOTE="UnrealLegend"]

I think the 8.5 is justified. The AI was bad and I found the story disappointing. Still an aewsome game though.

soapandbubbles

I played it on normal. There were times where the enemies just stood still and let me shoot them in the face, or I'd step around a corner and a guy would stare at me for three seconds before finally shooting me.

I turned OSDT off after 10 minutes of playing it. :P The level design is appalling. I'm on the "Dead Man Walking" mission on Crysis 2, and it's been incredible so far. :) Definitely a 8.5 - 9 imo. It still lacks that epic feeling to the levels you had while playing Crysis 1 though. :(

DreamCryotank

Even though the gunplay was very fun, the AI bugs were ridiculous and the multiplayer offering is very underwhelming.

Because it doesn't have either "Halo", "CoD" or "Gears" in its name.

GreenGoblin2099

Even though the gunplay was very fun, the AI bugs were ridiculous and the multiplayer offering is very underwhelming.

Vaasman

hate for ODST I understand but reach? i felt reach was better in story and characters, the gameplay of crysis 2 and reach are for me on par and the rest go towards them both, in the end Its an Opinion yours is a nine so why bother what others think?

Because EA did not "sponsor" the review like MS/activision does.

Yet ODST, Reach get 9.0/9.5??? Thats nostaligia if i've ever seen it.

To me this makes so little sense, Not only does Crysis 2 have a better story than reach,it looks better, plays better and just has more going for it thanks to the suit abilities. From being able to grab/slide/kick and just completely get immersed in such detail crytek has managed to create for a console game.

I haven't felt this type of epic experience since MGS4, IMO

Thoughts?

soapandbubbles

[QUOTE="Vaasman"]

Even though the gunplay was very fun, the AI bugs were ridiculous and the multiplayer offering is very underwhelming.

soapandbubbles

[QUOTE="soapandbubbles"][QUOTE="Vaasman"]

Even though the gunplay was very fun, the AI bugs were ridiculous and the multiplayer offering is very underwhelming.

Vaasman

[QUOTE="soapandbubbles"]

Yet ODST, Reach get 9.0/9.5??? Thats nostaligia if i've ever seen it.

To me this makes so little sense, Not only does Crysis 2 have a better story than reach,it looks better, plays better and just has more going for it thanks to the suit abilities. From being able to grab/slide/kick and just completely get immersed in such detail crytek has managed to create for a console game.

I haven't felt this type of epic experience since MGS4, IMO

Thoughts?

Calvin079

No its not something to base a score on, but the AI is a LARGE portion of a game (obviously). But if the enmies are acting that dumb 9running past you, failing to return fire when you engage them (visible of course) then I think its an issue. Clearly, you are shooting the enmy and if they just wander around and do nothing about you, then the clunky AI makesthe game turn into a calkwalk.

No its not something to base a score on, but the AI is a LARGE portion of a game (obviously). But if the enmies are acting that dumb 9running past you, failing to return fire when you engage them (visible of course) then I think its an issue. Clearly, you are shooting the enmy and if they just wander around and do nothing about you, then the clunky AI makesthe game turn into a calkwalk.

Calvin079

No its not something to base a score on, but the AI is a LARGE portion of a game (obviously). But if the enmies are acting that dumb 9running past you, failing to return fire when you engage them (visible of course) then I think its an issue. Clearly, you are shooting the enmy and if they just wander around and do nothing about you, then the clunky AI makesthe game turn into a calkwalk.

Calvin079

[QUOTE="Calvin079"]

No its not something to base a score on, but the AI is a LARGE portion of a game (obviously). But if the enmies are acting that dumb 9running past you, failing to return fire when you engage them (visible of course) then I think its an issue. Clearly, you are shooting the enmy and if they just wander around and do nothing about you, then the clunky AI makesthe game turn into a calkwalk.

antifanboyftw

Dude, it's your opinion. But I do agree with you on ODST. I thought it was a terrible addition to the Halo series. I loved Reach though, added some freshness to Halo.

And I haven't even played it, I'm just going on Mr. VanOrd's review.

[QUOTE="Calvin079"]

[QUOTE="soapandbubbles"]

Yet ODST, Reach get 9.0/9.5??? Thats nostaligia if i've ever seen it.

To me this makes so little sense, Not only does Crysis 2 have a better story than reach,it looks better, plays better and just has more going for it thanks to the suit abilities. From being able to grab/slide/kick and just completely get immersed in such detail crytek has managed to create for a console game.

I haven't felt this type of epic experience since MGS4, IMO

Thoughts?

soapandbubbles

That isn't all that brought it down either. It's multiplayer is weak, the vehicles all handle like a unicycle, it ends on a mass effect ****cliffhanger, none of the characters are memorable, there are plenty of physics bugs, annoying issues with strength, like full energy drains when throwing a keyboard.

I liked the game a lot, maybe more than crysis 1 sometimes, but there are issues, and Kevin V. felt that those brought it to an 8.5.

No its not something to base a score on, but the AI is a LARGE portion of a game (obviously). But if the enmies are acting that dumb 9running past you, failing to return fire when you engage them (visible of course) then I think its an issue. Clearly, you are shooting the enmy and if they just wander around and do nothing about you, then the clunky AI makesthe game turn into a calkwalk.

[QUOTE="soapandbubbles"][QUOTE="Calvin079"] I haven't played it, but if the AI is that junky through the first half of the gamelikeMr. VanOrd says,why should it get 9?

Vaasman

That isn't all that brought it down either. It's multiplayer is weak, the vehicles all handle like a unicycle, it ends on a mass effect ****cliffhanger, none of the characters are memorable, there are plenty of physics bugs, annoying issues with strength, like full energy drains when throwing a keyboard.

I liked the game a lot, maybe more than crysis 1 sometimes, but there are issues, and Kevin V. felt that those brought it to an 8.5.

[QUOTE="Vaasman"]

[QUOTE="soapandbubbles"] A.I is hard and aggressive...play the game. Every game has some bad A.I at some points...the A.I in Crysis 2 is smart, but due to some glitches can be bad..but not very noticable...and A.I isn't the only thing to base a score on is it? Again, Halo a.i is horrid at times. expeically the marines. soapandbubbles

That isn't all that brought it down either. It's multiplayer is weak, the vehicles all handle like a unicycle, it ends on a mass effect ****cliffhanger, none of the characters are memorable, there are plenty of physics bugs, annoying issues with strength, like full energy drains when throwing a keyboard.

I liked the game a lot, maybe more than crysis 1 sometimes, but there are issues, and Kevin V. felt that those brought it to an 8.5.

is it really that good now cuz the demo was pretty meh not bad but meh maybe the PC version is better but the 360 version was just mehmurat8

[QUOTE="murat8"]is it really that good now cuz the demo was pretty meh not bad but meh maybe the PC version is better but the 360 version was just mehInconsistancy

I don't think it deserves a 9. Sure, I don't think Reach or ODST do either, but Crysis 2 had it's problems. Atrocious AI being the strongest one. Increasing the difficulty didn't help. The game was great, but I think it deserved an 8.

It's not quite a 9 since the AI can be incredibly stupid at times - Right at the start of Gate Keepers the soldiers were trying to throw grenades at me from halfway across the dock - inevitably they missed and blew up their own guys. In general the AI is good, but when it goes wrong...it really goes wrong.

You can fault it on graphics or entertainment, but faulty AI breaks the illusion the game is trying to create in the first place.

Irrespective, it's an excellent game.

Because it actually deserved its score. GS is one of the more critical/harsh reviewers and thats a good thing. Not every game needs 8 or more just because they don't want to seem to mean.

Oh, and Reach was no where close to a 9.5 game. Crysis 2 is better than many games that get higher scores. But people enjoy different things. Damn opinions gotta mean official now. You should be allowed to go back and change scores.

I don't think it deserves a 9. Sure, I don't think Reach or ODST do either, but Crysis 2 had it's problems. Atrocious AI being the strongest one. Increasing the difficulty didn't help. The game was great, but I think it deserved an 8.

IndianaPwns39

Because it doesn't have either "Halo", "CoD" or "Gears" in its name.

GreenGoblin2099

Halo Wars: 6.5

Yet ODST, Reach get 9.0/9.5??? Thats nostaligia if i've ever seen it.

To me this makes so little sense, Not only does Crysis 2 have a better story than reach,it looks better, plays better and just has more going for it thanks to the suit abilities. From being able to grab/slide/kick and just completely get immersed in such detail crytek has managed to create for a console game.

I haven't felt this type of epic experience since MGS4, IMO

Thoughts?

soapandbubbles

Gamespot scores are based on hype, not on game quality

That is the reason a game like Fallout Vegas can possibly get a 7.5 and MGS4 or Unchated 2get 9+ or closer to perfect 10/10 when in fact are very linear short and boring games, some of the worst for me this generation

Juts play all the games Gamespot scores 7.5-9, those are the best games this generation by far, all 9+ are mediocre

Gamespot reviews are the most usufull too, when they scre something in 7.5-9 range, i know for fact that is one amazing game and buy it instantly, also i avoid or rent all games they score 9+, they are 100% accurate in that trend too